Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Spearman, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jesse Leon Spearman's untitled motion seeking relief from his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. While the denial was affirmed, it was without prejudice to allow Spearman to file a motion in district court to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a recent Supreme Court decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7521

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jesse Leon Spearman's untitled motion seeking relief from his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. While the denial was affirmed, it was without prejudice to allow Spearman to file a motion in district court to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a recent Supreme Court decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. Spearman, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jesse Leon Spearman's untitled motion seeking relief from his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. While the denial was affirmed, it was without prejudice to allow Spearman to file a motion in district court to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a recent Supreme Court decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7521

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JESSE LEON SPEARMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:05-cr-00057)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2008

    Decided:

    July 9, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jesse Leon Spearman, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett James, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse Leon Spearman appeals the district courts order
    denying
    sentence.

    Spearmans

    error.

    untitled

    motion

    seeking

    relief

    from

    his

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court, without prejudice to Spearmans ability to file a


    motion in the district court to modify his sentence pursuant to 18
    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2000).

    United States v. Spearman, No. 3:05-

    cr-00057 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2007); see also Kimbrough v. United
    States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007).

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like